This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.

"The Apocalypse" as a stand-alone phrase is not the common way in the English language to refer to the last book of the New Testament; changing to "Book of Revelation". AnonMoos 16:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Could someone elaborate as to what Joachim's "Three great books" were? I would like to find them. ThePeg 22:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The titles are listed. If you come across translations by searching the Latin titles at amazon.com, maybe you'd add them to the article. --Wetman 22:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The one publication I have been able to find which includes Fiori's work (including some of his diagrams and illustrations) is the anthology Apocalyptic Spirituality published by Paulist Press. ThePeg 11:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the source for neo-joachimism? 70.94.8.139 19:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently it was earlier versions of the German article de:Joachim von Fiore , but it seems to be gone from the German version of the article now (though there's a link Jürgen Kuhlmann: Neujoachimismus). There's some discussion on the German Wikipedia article talk page... AnonMoos 11:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I finally removed the Neo-Joachimism section, since no verification was added for a long time, and since the German Wikipedia editors are probably in a better position to learn about it, and they removed it from their version of the article. AnonMoos 21:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

In the section about the Obama "hoax", there are three citations. All three of them state that Obama referred to Joachim in his speeches.

I think there's a problem with Wikipedia saying unambiguously "this is a hoax" without any citations backing that up. And it's even odder when we do include citations that claim it's true. Can someone find an actual citation that says it's false? (I removed the words "of course" from the sentence "Of course, no citation in any actual speech of Obama's quoting or mentioning Joachim has been produced." The words "of course" do not obviate the need for a citation.) — Lawrence King(talk) 16:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Also: This section begins with the words "Recently, a hoax has been circulating that..." When I read these words, it makes me think that there's a chain email about it, or someone on some television show claimed this. But in fact, Barack Obama is stated to have said these words according to the Italian press agency Adnkronos and The Times of London. (See the citations in that section.) Even if it turns out that Obama never said this, should Wikipedia really use the phrase "a hoax has been circulating" to indicate false statements in reputable newspapers? The word "hoax" requires deliberate falsification; is there any evidence of that? — Lawrence King(talk) 16:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."

In that spirit, I have commented out the "Hoax" section. It can be uncommented once reliable references (for or against) are found. 88.89.239.218 (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This section has apparent historical inaccuracies. It differs from the Catholic Encyclopedia and other Church Histories. The actual documents need to be cited and quoted from. For instance, other entries on this subject say that St. Thomas Aquinas only disagreed with ONE of Joachim's theories; and that the Synod of Arles did not condemn Joachim's theories, but the spurious writings attributed to him after his death; and that Pope Alexander did not condemn all of Joachim's writings, as stated here, but rather just one of his theories. Someone needs to read the actual documents in question and quote from them verbatim. --Patriarchs Press (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't mention be made of Joachim's influence on Moeller van den Bruck's Das Dritte Reich? The notion of a third age or kingdom had an enduring mystical-political influence, in various forms, up to the Nazi appropriation of Moeller's title. See for example Fritz Stern, The Politics of Cultural Despair (1961), 253. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.232.115.107 (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

From the articles, Arthur Moeller van den Bruck was not a Nazi, and article Das Dritte Reich does not mention Joachim. Nazis were almost certainly influenced by Guido von List much more than Joachim von Fiore... AnonMoos (talk) 13:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Second half of "Literary References" seems to have a non neutral point of view[edit]

It seems as though the second half of the literary references talking about various conspiracy theory novels is both biased and has several mistakes. Could someone please take a look at this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.78.122.16 (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)